Re: Should I go Arch?

Re: Should I go Arch?

Might I suggest you try installing Arch in a virtual machine to test the waters before you leap into the deep end?

Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature -- Michael FaradaySometimes it is the people no one can imagine anything of who do the things no one can imagine. -- Alan Turing---How to Ask Questions the Smart Way

Re: Should I go Arch?

You are currently running an Arch derivative? Chances are high, that they do not use too many different packages. Make yourself accustomed with pacman and learn, how to create package lists. Create a list of explicitly installed packages, that are not in the [base] and [base-devel] group. Then take this list and check it against the package database (on the package website for example), to find packages, that are in your current distribution, but not in Arch and delete them from your list. Now go through that list again. Is there anything, you do not need? Many distributions install junk on your system you never use. Identify that junk and delete it from the list.

Besides trying to install Arch in a virtual machine, I have successfully installed Arch on USB sticks many times. While the success of this depends on your bios and dongles, it is a good way to practice the Arch install, without having to worry about breaking your system.

Re: Should I go Arch?

My income also relies on a single machine (laptop). I'm pretty impatient though and i enjoy taking risks now and then, so one cold (hot? can't remember but cold sounds better) afternoon in 2008 i just formatted my 2-year old Ubuntu partition and installed Arch using the Beginner's Guide. The rest is history, i'm about 6 laptops further now, and i don't think i've ever had more than 1-2 hours without a working machine since then. So my advice would be to walk into your bathroom, look in the mirror and ask yourself: "well do you feel lucky, punk?". I know i did.

If you want some downtime insurance:

drcouzeliz wrote:

Or, to avoid pretty much any problems, just dual boot with what you're already using. I have four operating systems install. If I break Arch Linux, I can just boot into Haiku or FreeBSD! Just kidding. I just boot into an Arch Linux live CD I keep handy. Which, for the record, I've only had to do once. (Stupid Linux Mint installer...)

Re: Should I go Arch?

Also there is a wiki app in google store if i m not mistaken ( not a andriod user here ). This is a "must have" if you have only 1 machine and you are new commer. Just my 2 cents. Cheers

There is - there's a forum thread about it here, too. As I haven't opened it for months (Android phone is now my alarm clock), I'm not sure if it's up to date, or updates itself. I'd check before relying on it.

"...one cannot be angry when one looks at a penguin." - John Ruskin"Life in general is a bit shit, and so too is the internet. And that's all there is." - scepticisle

Re: Should I go Arch?

Wow! Thamk you all for the awesome advice! I will be installing arch alongside manjaro on Saturday (my next day off). I am so excited!

I made the same transition (ubuntu...manjaro.....arch), about 8 months ago.

If you are comfortable in using manjaro, you will be fine in arch. My advice, go for full install. The Beginners' guide is all you need. Follow it carefully & don't be tempted to use other guides or youtube installation videos...they will only lead you astray. The only up-to-date guide is the archwiki.

Good Luck.

If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the [censored] car. -The Wolf

Re: Should I go Arch?

Might I suggest you try installing Arch in a virtual machine to test the waters before you leap into the deep end?

I had considered this, but I am concerned that I may not get the full potential in a VM. I think dual booting will be my best option.

That sounds like a fine decision. By the way, the purpose of suggesting installing Arch Linux in a virtual machine is to become comfortable with the installation process, not to get the "full potential" of Arch Linux.

Re: Should I go Arch?

I' m totally not into geekie stuff. I' m way better with languages, philosophy and psychologie,than with exact sciences stuff. Nonetheless, I' ve been copy-pasting my way through several more complex distributions for years now. Hardly broke anything with Arch. I guess common sense gets you far enough...

Re: Should I go Arch?

linuxpcplus wrote:

.....My primary concerns surround my computing needs/resources.....extended periods of downtime can be very costly to me..... when I switch to Arch I will need to take the time to build my system to what I want it to be. I am concerned that this may be a problem since I may not be able to use my computer during this period, and masy experience breakages due to mistakes I make.....

You would probably get Archlinux installed fast enough and probably be able to keep it running smoothly. "Probably." If you want assurance that you can keep your computer available for work while you develop your skills then install more than one linux operating system so that you can boot into either one, and make sure that one of them is easy to install and pre-configured, an "out of the box" rolling-release distro, like Sabayon or Manjaro. Both of your distros can give you access to your files in a shared home partition.

A linux distro doesn't require much disk space but installing mutliple distros will probably require that you move all of your personal files "off somewhere" while you get the new home ready.

I have gnome3 installed in four different partitions for four different distros along with big packages like texlive and sage math. The least space needed is 8GB for a simple gnome3 install for Archlinux, and I'm using 16GB for gnome3 and kde4 and texlive on manjaro. I'm using 26GB for a very fully-loaded gentoo with "portage", distfiles, and kernel sources. I generally allow 30 GB for a root partition and it proves to be enough for a full install and plenty of apps for Sabayon, Manjaro, Archlinux, etc.

If could give up 30GB of your disk for "insurance" then you could be almost certain that you can always get work done even when you've got your Archlinux system all screwed up.

Re: Should I go Arch?

Re: Should I go Arch?

My path to Arch was somewhat different than most expressed here. I experimented with Ubuntu many years ago, and was never a fan. Then cam Linux Mint. In a short time I became very comfortable with Linux even when getting deep into the nuts and bolts, so much so that I built LFS and then just carried on by myself until I had a fully functioning system built by hand. My problem was that maintenance of my own build was far too time intensive. I could have honestly spent all my life just updating it, and so I needed something that offered me my new found freedom to make my system what I wanted without the time penalty. I was pretty much left with a choice between Gentoo and Arch. I chose Arch and honestly haven't looked back.

Sure, there is the odd breakage, and very occassionally there's the showstopper, but for me it's all part of the fun. I don't see the update that stops the boot process in its' tracks as a problem, I see it as a solution to be found and a new learning experience (or a reminder of things I'd forgotten) and can usually recover from even the worst failure in a couple of hours (with more than a little help from the wiki and forum searches).

As others have said, there's nothing at all inherently unstable about Arch, and in fact most of the time it's extremely reliable and dependable, even using testing repositories. You need to give yourself time to fix breakages if you rely on the machine for more than home/informal use. For more than a year I've run a server on my home box and so I had an incentive to keep it alive. Even the three or four big breakages haven't kept the server down for more than a few hours (although, I've this week migrated it to a VPS so that I can give my own machine a rest overnight on a daily basis).

The bottom line, if you are content to take the (small) risk of a critical breakage, and are prepared to put some effort in to keeping your system maintained, then Arch can meet all your needs.

By way of a comparison, when I used to run Windows I probably suffered more critical breakages in a 12 month period than I have with Arch.

Re: Should I go Arch?

not quite, i use slack in server env., they are conservative indeed, but for example, compared to centos they are light-years ahead with the packages. Plus it's a billion times easier to configure and maintain slack (in my opinion of course).

For desktop, Arch rules. I love rolling release, especially getting all the new stuff on a regular basis, plus the KISS philosophy of course. I chose Arch after trying out about 10-15 other distros. Arch indeed is a great distro if you want to start learning linux, if not, then it's not (for newbies).

Re: Should I go Arch?

I feel that it's really personality that determines if one can be comfortable with using Arch on a normal basis (and even prefer to do so). Arch is the first and only Linux distribution that I've ever tried, and I've been using it pretty much exclusively for a few months now (I may boot into my Windows partition to play games like GTA IV or use EAC or something, but that is rare). I came from Windows not knowing much about OSs. However, I had the right personality. I liked to configure things (such as editing the text files for settings of some pc games like America's Army, Bioshock, Source games, etc.), and I would always read up the subject before I made changes. Naturally this lead me to Arch at some point. I love reading documentation and trying to figure things out for myself by searching, reading, and troubleshooting. So by reading the Beginner's Guide and other related documentation, I've been able to live comfortably on Arch despite having no prior experience with Linux.

Re: Should I go Arch?

If I can install and use Arch Linux, a trained chimp can do it. The best thing about Arch is it's a rolling release, so a fresh installation invariably leapfrogs any problem that resulted in a crashed system.

Arch Linux is suited to the competent user.Which ranks me right up there at highly incompetent.

Re: Should I go Arch?

Arch is a more constant growing experience. It's hard to ride on the most bleeding-edge of all linux distro's out there without experiencing road-bumps along the way. Everyone's experiences will be different, depending on many things, but the funny part is Arch is defeintely NOT *Buntu,..., and yet, Arch "is" Linux, equally as *Buntu,..., -heck, they all are...., even though Arch is not really the "absolute" bleeding-weirdo-testing-edge, although it can be more easily than others, it still remains something that if you don't keep up with intenal changes, then you're outta luck sonner than you think, Or, you could invariably be enjoying fixes that everyone else hasn't quite implemented yet ??? Then again, Maybe Arch is just a double-edged sword, and that should be tantalizing enough?

I guess I just agree with @czubek for now too.\

...than again, Computer Science is Arch too, so pick your blades and learn to adapt like the rest of us.

Re: Should I go Arch?

Actually, i never actually "got" linux at all pre-arch.I had tried ubuntu because it was "the cool thing", but only as an actual user (as in; i just used what was given), and i got no deeper understanding of stuff, and crap, and junk. (besides, hey, packages and pre-set dirs are a nice concept).I then just booted it from time to time doing nothing particular really, then liking how it was not windows (this was years ago, before ubuntu had that sour and stale and crappy taste to it in the general minds).

I do remember doing a Crux linux install, but i do not think i did use it that much,and i also do not remember how i ended up trying Arch..

.. But Arch actually taught me, and keeps teaching me, and i feel so much in the know of stuff, junk and crap then i were before.

My bottom line is that i do not think we always need a "let's get used to this lesser distro" first, unless one is really lost to anything lacking a start menu (though i suppose Win are too nowadays )